The Pendragon's Hall

Intriguing news on the state front today. The Pendragon wonders just how easily hoodwinked liberals are. It was reported today that Senator Hillary Clinton wowed into silence a room full of upstate New York Democrats with the story of how she befriended a maid in Buffalo during her first senatorial bid. According to legend, the maid approached her when she left Buffalo and handed her a snow globe of the city, saying, "Mrs. Clinton, don't forget Buffalo." To riotous applause, Mrs. Clinton announced, "I never will." Good grief. It's hard to imagine that a room of, probably, relatively well-educated adults bought that story. Hasn't anyone learned by now? The Clintons make up stories like this through their teeth. Hillary's campaign manager probably bought the snow globe for her right before the fundraiser. Hillary's "autobiography", like that of her blowhard husband, was a few minor details of her life and a ton of campaign propaganda. This is the woman who claimed she discussed politics with Bill while cutting his grapefruit in the morning when all her closest friends and advisors say she does no such thing. The one who conveniently forgot about her underhanded political maneuvering in Arkansas and tried to paint a picture of the involved housewife, frantically packing up her belongings and interested in decorating the governor's mansion. Oh, please.

There is another group who haven't learned about the lying nature of these Clintons: liberal Democrats in New York. Apparently unable to see that, just like her husband, the lefty Mrs. Clinton is moving to the center to court votes and will rejoin their cause, the minute she says, "So help me Allah," many Manhattan Democrats are supporting a new senatorial candidate, Jonathan Tasini, a more overtly leftwing Democrat. The Pendragon is tempted to donate to the fund and announce his support for Tasini, if only to help the cause of splitting Hillary's base. But the move is amusing in that it is unnecessary: Hillary is a leftist and always has been. She might stretch the truth (i.e. lie a bit) to sway voters but she'll never stand by her words. Since when has a Clinton delivered on anything they promised? It does give the lie, however, to the oft-quoted idea that Hillary is unfailingly popular with Democrats and middle-of-the-roaders. As she alienates Manhattan liberals, conservatives united against her and moderates fear her double-talk, I predict the chances of her winning the presidential nomination in 2008 will grow slimmer and slimmer. Of course, she could always rely on the old strong-arm tactics but there it is: there is a split widening in the Democratic Party and Hillary is falling fast. If Republicans take advantage of this, victory could yet follow, perhaps even this Fall in New York state.

Twenty-three years ago, in 1983, Lee Greenwood took a look at America--seemingly divided and in the midst of economic woes and penned some immortal words to give tribute to the fact that this is still the best country in the world to live in and thanking our men and women in uniform for their courage and sacrifice. It is still true today:

The headlines in the NYT today announced that the Bush administration is considering whether to end its longstanding policy towards rogue states and enter into discussions with Iran, the terrorist state now seeking nuclear weapons. The Pendragon would like to step away from his conservative credentials for a moment and say I think this is a good idea. I supported the war in Iraq, still do as a matter of fact, but in facing Saddam Hussein the United States was pitted against a megalomaniac bent on gaining WMD's. In Iran and in North Korea we face people who either already have them or are very close to getting them. This changes the equation considerably.

First of all, let me unequivocably state that the end of any diplomacy must be unconditional disarmament by the rogue state involved. With their history of aggression and unbalanced government, neither Iran nor North Korea is responsible enough to be trusted for nuclear weapons even in their own defense. Since this is true, any kind of energy system they develop must not be based in nuclear power, since the temptation would be there to begin an undercover program again (nuclear power sites are not monitored by the UN). This is non-negotiable. Any agreement reached must have as its goal complete disarmament. Since the efficiency of economic sanctions is questionable--in Iran it has served to make us "the Great Satan" and the government in Pyongyang has shown no remorse in living in prosperity while condemning its populace to starve--the threat of some kind of force cannot be completely taken off the table. The world's only superpower would be trading its best weapon, besides sending a message to the Iranians and North Koreans that having nuclear weapons puts them in charge. There will be no disarmament if they realize this. Besides which, talks and economic sanctions put the world at risk and harm the people living there but only the threat of military intervention involves the rogue government itself in the risk and makes it interested in dealing with the civilized world again. Nevertheless, we cannot expect any nation to completely put itself out in a confrontation with the United States or any other power, therefore we must be smart about this. The government must be made to see that it is in their best interest to disarm. A package of incentives might be offered for complete and verified disarmament, through an agency of our choosing not theirs: diplomatic recognition for the government involved, a no-invasion pledge provided the agreement is followed, stepped-up economic ties (in the case of Iran a particularly good idea at the moment), and help in developing a safe, stable non-nuclear energy source. Will this work? I do not know. The Iranian president is a nutcase and Kim Jong Il is not prone to intelligent, rational decision making, whatever Jimbo Carter might say. But in the wake of such an offer, made publicly, a rejection would unite the entire world and there would be much more widespread support for military intervention than there would be if that was threatened first. The United States would be "the good guy"--nobody could deny it. And it would be an important victory for US diplomacy, right now under suspicion as being the civilian branch of the military. For all these reasons, the Pendragon is hopeful that the Bush administration will not scorn diplomacy but will keep a hand on the revolver just in case.

It's official. Dick Morris is an idiot and so are any Republicans who listen to him. After years of whining about how the US is growing daily more liberal, about how only Condi could stop Hillary in 2008, about how John Kerry was sure to win every swing state by double digits in 2004, now he has taken the cake. I opened my email this morning to find a message from Dick now claiming that since Condi will not run in 2008 and John McCain and Rudy Giuliani aren't likely to be able to stop her, our only hope is Al Gore. The whole email was a paean to both McCain, the poor put-upon RINO, and to the good sense and moderation and principled, presidential stance of Sir Albert Gore. Morris compared him to Nixon, another VP who lost narrowly only to return eight years later and win. Morris is now full-fledged behind Al Gore for the Democratic presidential nomination, a move he claims is inspired by his anybody-but-Hillary stance.

This is ridiculous. While I share his concern that no Republican appears to be taking the lead in the next presidential election (although I am more hopeful than he that perhaps Mitt Romney might run), his sky-is-falling mentality is getting a little old. Hillary's poll numbers continue to sink. The latest prediction has New York State in doubt should Hillary try for the presidency against either John McCain or Rudy Giuliani. If McCain can give Clinton a run for her money here, then certainly Romney or another famous Republican could. The anti-Hillary crowd is stronger than he seems to give them credit for. What's more, he has never been right yet; why should we start taking his opinion now? As I recall, a year ago he predicted Hillary would drop out of the senate race if pushed because she didn't want to spend her 2008 cash. In the end, the only purpose Morris and his ilk will serve is dividing the Republican Party and giving them a who-cares-who-runs-as-long-as-he-is-electable attitude. We saw how well that worked in 1996.

Intriguing news from the Lands Down Under (under the US anyway): Peruvian presidential frontrunner Alan Garcia has announced that a large part of his platform will be to resist the domination of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, who is, in the words of Mr. Garcia, "a scoundrel." This is interesting because the Pendragon spearheaded a (thus far failed) attempt to boycott CITGO gas because it supports the government of Mr. Chavez and was informed that Chavez was simply aiding downtrodden Latin Americans to stand up to the hegemony of the United States. Mr. Garcia's opposition seems to suggest that not all countries welcome the fact that Chavez, far from leading them out from the domination of one nation into an era of autonomy, simply wants to substitute himself and alienate South America from the rest of the world. According to a Newsmax press release, Peru looks to be the second government, the other being Colombia, who rejects the Chavanistas rosy-eyed view of the world and tries to take an independent route. I applaud them for this and I hope the United States, rather than getting in some kind of rhetorical war with the bigmouthed dictator in Caracas, will quietly push their economic ties with Colombia and Peru, two nations who have rejected the charisma without results pattern so widespread in Latin America. Way to go, Mr. Garcia!

Despite my disagreement with Ann Coulter on some specifics, the Pendragon would like it noted that I still think her a fine writer and a respected colleague in the conservative movement. One of the reasons for this is the absolute infantile hatred she arouses from the Left. People accuse her of being unsensitive and to quote one person "mean." But consider the reactions of the other side. Boy genius Sean Penn admitted recently he has an Ann Coulter doll: "We violate her. There are some cigarette burns on her in some funny places." If a conservative, like Coulter or Rush Limbaugh, had a Bill Clinton or Barbara Streisand doll that they ritually "tortured," the mainstream press (and most people!) would rightly think them off-their-rocker lunatics who should never be consulted about anything ever again. Yet, strangely, Sean Penn still gets interviews that go nationwide and people actually invite him on talk shows to present his views as if they are sane alternatives that should be considered. Coulter and Limbaugh are left out in the cold. The Pendragon can feel Coulter's frustration that, rather than being matched against liberal intellectuals her own size, she is constantly being called in to rebut the ideas of idiots. Yet she manages to do so without resorting to infantile rage tactics like sticking pins in voodoo dolls. Does she sometimes come on very strongly? Oh yes indeed. But it's simply because she has passionate convictions. I heard a pastor say once he'd rather have to put out a fire than raise the dead, and I know what he meant. I'd rather have people who sometimes get a little too worked up, but essentially are conviction-driven, than people who say, with the majority of my student body, "Oh what the heck?" The Pendragon salutes Coulter for her unique contribution to conservative thought in the United States. I think we should keep her: the liberals can have Sean Penn.

Far too many conservatives have decided that they can go it alone. Jettisoning the one man who proved he could win, they choose to stick with ideas and characters that have no future. Ann Coulter has gone so far as to say she hopes the new immigration proposal hurts Republicans in November and the new Democratic Congress will impeach Bush and put Cheney in his place. The Pendragon finds all this hysteria ridiculous. Coulter and others are welcome to try to win on their own, but her hero's suggestion that illegal immigrants get 48 hours to get out of the country is equally ridiculous because as the President noted in his speech this past week they will simply refuse to come.

The Left is equally wrong-footed in that illegal immigration is a real problem. Amnesty is not the answer and something has to be done. But I see nothing wrong with President Bush's plan as outlined earlier. Bush recognizes the flaw in our current system, particularly "catch and release" (and this is a big step up from earlier policy) and is taking steps to end it. Increasing detention center size and the legal authority to stop illegals is a good first step. As far as I can tell, there is nothing wrong with a guest worker program so long as it is actually "a guest worker" program. But the technology must be in place to enforce that, so in the meantime, perhaps the regulations should be stiffened to avoid more violations. As much in some ways, I would like to see illegal immigration punished, you cannot realistically hope to round up every illegal and deport them. Coulter snidely comments that Bush's proposal would give furlough to serial killers while punishing first time murderers. The analogy is inapt. The law does not provide for punishing people in retrospect so the idea is to prevent further breaking of the law while deciding what to do with people who've done it in the past. This is a thorny question nowhere near as black-and-white as many conservatives seem to think.I particularly liked the President's emphasis on the English language at the end of his speech. I wholeheartedly support the idea that immigrants must demonstrate fluency in the English language. It's as good for the immigrant as it is for us. Bush's final call for reason and respect in the discussion of immigration is as necessary as ever: Coulter's columns and the screaming Hispanics in Chicago show us that.

My main frustration is that conservatives seem unable to win elections for long periods of time because they can't tell the difference between their ideals and reality. Liberals have had this problem for years but it seems to be spreading. Bush has been a good president, destined I think to be one of the all-time greats. It's about time we afford him some of the same protection liberals get from their own. Liberals will forgive anything for the continuation of abortion rights; conservatives need to be willing to support their man for the sake of continued victory in the war on terror and moral leadership. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. It would be nice to win on everything, but nobody ever does. Bush has managed to build a center-right coalition in 2000, 2002 and 2004. With the right kind of support he can do the same in 2006 and even 2008. If conservatives continue to follow Coulter's line, we will have a Democratic Congress working with President Hillary come 2008.

George Weigel has an excellent article in Commentary Magazine about the two culture wars facing Europe. As much as the current debate on immigration has taken the sky-is-falling sort of attitude in the US, Europe is actually faced with the destruction of its civilization. Here in the US, the Pendragon supports wholeheartedly any immigration proposal that will have as its final goal the integration of the immigrant with American society. This is the only way we can avoid the dissolution of our society on the order of Europe: immigrants must be encouraged to come and join us. There must be an easy way for them to do this. But this must always include subjection to our laws, and no separate law to appeal to. Weigel talks about sharia law complexes in France in particular but all over Europe where the rape victim pays the ultimate penalty and female circumcision is practiced. This must never happen here. The United States needs to do what historian John Lewis Gaddis suggests in Surprise, Security and the American Experience and acknowledge a certain moral ambiguity about our country: being American does not make something right, but being American also does not make it wrong. The fact that Americans in the past enslaved Africans and persecuted Indians must not give Muslims or any other immigrant group the right to do it today. And America's dominant Judeo-Christian culture is not going to play dead for anyone. This is who we are and how we got this way; if people don't like it, they can stay where they are comfortable. That's fine. Immigration should be relatively easy in this country and immigrants should be welcomed from everywhere. "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free....I lift my lamp beside the golden door." But this does not mean that they get to come here and make the United States greater Mexico or greater Japan or greater Jordan. They come to be Americans and this, in the end, is what they must become.

The Pendragon was relieved to see that the Gwinnett County schoolboard in Georgia rejected calls from a mother in their district to ban the Harry Potter books from their school library. I am sympathetic to parents' pleas to have a say in what their children read (who better?) but the particular mother interested in banning Harry Potter told the local news that she had not even read the series to see if there was anything objectionable in them because that would be "hypocritical." The problem with this is it feeds the idea that all concerned parents simply spout the ideas of others. While I personally would still disagree with the woman that Harry Potter is more objectionable than other books and deserves censorship, at least then her views could be entertained as being informed decisions of a concerned parent not simply the knee-jerk reaction of someone listening to the views of others, many of whom have also not read the books. I would never suggest she let her children read them if they are young and she is uncomfortable with them, but she should not lead a crusade against the series as a whole if she is not informed on the subject. If she reads them herself and still feels the same way, then she has a right to try to convince others, but as long as she has no textual authority she has nothing to rest her case on and she gives other, actually informed parents, a bad name.

I saw the new movie United 93 this afternoon in Buffalo. It is a wrenching movie to watch, particularly because we know the ending when the movie begins. It is hard to see excited young women making plans with their boyfriends and middle-aged men planning vacations when just a few yards away in the same line sit four men who were plotting to take their lives. Throughout, as the flight experienced delays and the lead terrorist sat waiting for "the right time", I found myself praying, "Let him lose his nerve, let him lose his nerve." Of course, he doesn't and the takeover goes as planned. In the meantime, FAA and the control towers are in bedlam, with hundreds of flights screwed up and reports of hijacking coming in from all over. Then the towers come down and the Pentagon is hit. On board the plane a handful of the men realize that they are doomed to die either way and decide to try to take the plane back and crash it without reaching their destination. I knew this part; what I did not know was that two men on the plane had long experience flying planes and agreed to try and fly the plane after the terrorists were disposed of, hoping to save all their lives. It is heartbreaking to watch this be denied to them. I also did not know that only one flight attendent, the two pilots and one passenger were killed at the outset. The rest of the attendents joined the passengers in their final stand. In the final minutes before the crash, the passengers and attendents are all on the phone to their families, one flight attendent sobbing, "If I just get off this plane, I'll quit tomorrow." I left the theatre with all the emotions of 9/11 running through my head again, shaking with fury--I could hardly drive back to my home in Houghton. It infuriates me still that otherwise intelligent people can say with a straight face that the monsters who did this deserve any kind of human pity. Rush Limbaugh is right: this movie is not only NOT too soon, it is long overdue. Despite its intensity, everyone in this country 17 and older should watch it. The emotions have worn off: people are beginning to lose sight of why the United States must fight this global war on terror, alone if need be although preferably with the help of allies. Historian John Lewis Gaddis of Yale commented on the events of 9/11: "Although the accuracy of historical writing diminishes as it approaches the present--because perspectives are shorter and there are fewer sources to work with...the relevance of such writing increases. We act in the present with the view of shaping the future only on the basis of what we know from the past. So we might as well try to know our recent history as best we can, however imperfect the exercise may be. An incomplete map is better than no map at all." To forget what happened would be to dishonor the memory of those brave passengers who, rather than sit and wait for death, rose up to do what they could to lessen the burden on their country. Like the song says, "They more than self their country loved and mercy more than life!"

In light of my viewing of this movie, my rage only increase at the idiocy of Hollywood. Boy genius Charlie Sheen, whose only area of expertise is shooting off his mouth, suggested the US government deliberately imploded the Twin Towers on 9/11: "I said to my brother, 'Call me insane, but did it look sort of like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition?'" All I can say is, it's nice to know while real Americans across the world and even the French sat glued to their televisions and gaped in horror at the death and devastation wreaked on their fellow human beings, the Sheen brothers were calmly analyzing the attacks and wondering idly whether the US government had done it on purpose. What a disgrace.

Key Republicans on Capitol Hill are already trying to ingratiate themselves with the anti-Bush crowd by criticizing Bush's first choice to head the CIA: Air-Force General Michael Hayden. The problem, they say, is it will give the impression that the military is running what should be an essentially civilian force.

Of course, this is more of the ridiculousness that has harmed Bush's second term. By such reasoning no former military man should be allowed to run for President, because that might give the impression that the military controlled the executive branch. In Latin America that is almost always true, but in the US all the Presidents who have served in the military tend to be the best: Washington, Jackson, Grant, TR, Eisenhower, etc. Of course what the Democrats are worried about is that the promotion of a military man might instill a bit more efficiency over in the woefully inept CIA, which would scuttle the ability of Muslim extremists to target Americans worldwide. Why Republicans go along with this, rather than support one of their own, is beyond me. In 2002 they stuck with Bush and won: ditto for 2004. Nothing will change for 2006. Republicans who stick by the President will be returned to office; if the Democrats take charge on Capitol Hill, it will be because most of the Republicans deserted their chief and pandered to the Left. This will, of course, be trotted out as proof that people are fed up with Republicans, but it is actually RINO's that Americans are fed up with and if the Senate is going to insist on being this way, it will find itself in different hands come November. My suggested strategy: cut your losses in the Senate and try to hold on to the House, the more important and compliant branch of the legislature.

Pope Charming and the Pendragon have certainly had our differences over the years, but on the matter of Houghton College's dealings with Professor Brad Beach our thought runs together. You see, Dr. Beach was hired by Houghton College six years ago as a tenure-track professor. But at the end of last semester he was not only denied tenure but informed that since Dr. Fisher (a man I greatly respect) wanted to return to classroom teaching, Beach's position was being eliminated and he would not be rehired for the next schoolyear. This news came in December when pretty much all the teaching jobs for next year would be filled. When the news was announced there was an outpouring of rage from the tenured faculty and the student body. Professor Beach is a well-respected, well-liked teacher. Two students on campus organized a Save-the-Beach campaign mentored by some of the faculty. This generated the support of at least 3/4 of Houghton students, all the tenured faculty (and this is most of our professors), and many others as well. The justification given, as well as the lack of a need for four faculty members to teach the ten philosophy majors here, was that Houghton needed to balance its budget. Even in the midst of the uproar, however, the College President (who having led the college well during his first twenty-nine years apparently feels the need to botch it all up for his last year here and stick it to the incoming president) assured the College that its finances were in order, something backed up when nearly two dozen new faculty members were hired, including a man whose sole job is to attract black students to a rural college with a lousy engineering program, and the beginning of sweeping building projects, which include a $4 million addition to the library to house a graduate school of theology, and a renovation of the chapel to seat 1400 students, a number which the powers that be have randomly decided we are about to reach, despite falling enrollment in recent years. After all the outcry, the Board of Trustees decided to review the decision and took their sweet time about it too, releasing their vote to uphold the original decision the week before finals. The President, meanwhile, conveniently was out of town the day the announcement was made.

I think it is an absolute outrage. While the point that the philosophy major is so small and doesn't need so many professors is valid, Professor Beach was not given enough time to move on. Furthermore, this was all justified by saying that Houghton was trying to balance its budget and expand a bit, hopefully reaching a student body of 1400 by the year 2010. But this is not going to happen in the current state of things. The building projects, the firing of favorite faculty members (and Beach is not the only one), and the sudden influx of new rules with no explanation have all contributed to make life miserable for current students. Satisfaction with this college has fallen way down, and it was pretty high before. The treatment of Professor Beach, moreover, will certainly have an adverse impact on remaining faculty: it will be hard to attract good ones if they can't be sure of tenure; those already here will be less hesitant to accept other jobs offers if they seem more secure. Without good faculty and happy, positive students, Houghton is just a tiny college in the middle of nowhere with very little to recommend it. I can hope that our new president will reverse the trends of the last year and hopefully some heads will roll besides the outgoing President in the administration. Only this way will they really reach their desired conclusion of a vibrant, growing Houghton College.

So a civilian court has decided that the life of a hardened terrorist is more important than the lives of innocent Americans. One of the architects of 9/11 was given a sentence of life in prison this past week instead of the death penalty. This to me is ridiculous: American taxpayers will now have to pay for Massaoui's upgrade to a better life than the one he was living already. Treating terrorists like common criminals is the biggest mistake of all: they are enemy combatants and must be treated like such. This does not mean torture but it does mean that they should be tried before military tribunals and not civilian courts and they deserve the death penalty. If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed. And for those who would say that life in prison is a worse punishment, I say they are judging Massaoui by themselves. They might rather die than live with guilt but people like Massaoui have no problem. They still don't think they did anything wrong. I only hope that the courts reform themselves and recognize the fact that their country is at war before even more people are living on the dole.